Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian debate in danger of pollution (was Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:41:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1155 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> But that's okay, because we don't need proof in
> order to have *faith* (the assurance of things unknown).
Highlight above, "unknown".
> Of course, it cuts both ways. Neither can Lar provide any evidence to the
> contrary that God doesn't exist. But then he will blather on about the
> burden of proof being incumbent upon us blah blah squirm blah.
I would argue that neither you nor Lar can prove something to the other.
Neither of your arguments shall have bearing on the other. Lar won't accept
your evidence, and you won't accept his argument that he cannot disprove
God's existence. Neither of you would be squirming any more than the other,
because you're both satisfied that you're right.
> Here is where I think the "intellectuals" stumble: Say for argument's sake >that there actually is a God who created us all. This God is unseen because
> it is infinite and cannot be comprehended by finite beings.
Highlight above "cannot"? (well, ok, 'comprehended'-- you've got an out)
> Now, how could an
> intellectual or a scientist ever hope to believe this God exists?
How do you ever hope to believe that God exists?
> Because
> they can only know to be true what they can prove. God by definition is
> unprovable
Ok, here I reach the crux. If God's existence is unproveable, how can you be
SURE God exists? As far as I know, God's existence is said by religious
types to be based on an emotional feeling or instinct which directs one to
have faith in the existence of such a being. Hence, that experience which
proves God's existence is personal and unknowable "objectively".
However, my argument to the contrary is that emotions are decieving, and
unreliable. They are also out of the range of objective discussion, thus
depriving me of argument since I can't truly:
- show you how someone ELSE feels because I can't know it
- show you how *I* feel because you don't need to believe it
- show you how *YOU* feel because you can't verify it to me
I can only put forth my belief that emotions are unstable and questionable,
even though correct sometimes. You can argue that, but I don't think either
one of us will get anywhere. Or you can accept it, in which case I won't buy
the theory of God's existence, unless it makes room for the possibility that
it's wrong wherever it's based on emotional experience, just like I make
room for the possibility that he DOES exist; I just refuse to commit to
either theory for lack of proof that I deem reliable.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
